Though, unless underhanded and illegal actions are taken, isn't this how politics are supposed to work?Can't the Democrats vote this down and force a stalemate/settle for a compromise somewhere in between?

Well, see, that's the trick: They came up with both proposals. "Compromising" to get under 20 weeks is a straight up win for them, as they get to place more restrictions on the thing they want to ban.

See, it's not that they want 20 weeks, no questions asked. They want 20 weeks with a 3 day waiting period while forcing doctors to ask again and again and again if they're really, totally sure this time for reals at the only clinic in the state the size of Germany. With Plan B and other effectinve post coitus birth control being banned and removing birth control items from health insurance. And then they can use more scientific fakery to propose 5 weeks and get 10 as a "compromise". Lord only knows what they're going to try next, the 3 week "it technically has a heart protection bill of 2018".

I don't see the point in putting time restrictions on abortion. The vast majority are done in the first trimester. If a woman decides later on in the pregnancy to terminate it, my immediate thought doesn't jump to 'she wants to kill the pregnancy now that it can feel pain, because obviously she's a monster that likes inflicting suffering on the unborn'. It could be that prenatal care has turned up fetal abnormalities that she isn't prepared to cope with (I'm not advocating eugenics by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not going to condemn a woman that feels ill equipped to deal with the added stresses and needed resources to care for a child with something like congenital heart disease, etc), or something in her life has changed to where she can't adequately provide for a child (loss of partner or job).

These creeping restrictions on abortion and the erosion of Roe v Wade by conservatives is gross considering how they give zero shits about the kid once it's actually born. Everything from the foster care system to basic needs like healthcare to public education are horribly underfunded in the US. Does caring about the sanctity of life stop at the end of the birth canal?

Jux:These creeping restrictions on abortion and the erosion of Roe v Wade by conservatives is gross considering how they give zero shits about the kid once it's actually born. Everything from the foster care system to basic needs like healthcare to public education are horribly underfunded in the US. Does caring about the sanctity of life stop at the end of the birth canal?

Here we get to the root of the problem. It's not abortion specifically they're trying to do away with. The wealthy know that even if it's made illegal in the US, they'll still have access to abortions at their convenience. It's about control. It's about undoing the progress women have made in becoming equal citizens with the right to self-determine. We see now with their push against birth control that was the real target all along. They want to maintain a vision of Christian patriarchy and they don't want anyone else to have a choice in whether or not they participate in it.

Jux:These creeping restrictions on abortion and the erosion of Roe v Wade by conservatives is gross considering how they give zero shits about the kid once it's actually born. Everything from the foster care system to basic needs like healthcare to public education are horribly underfunded in the US. Does caring about the sanctity of life stop at the end of the birth canal?

Here we get to the root of the problem. It's not abortion specifically they're trying to do away with. The wealthy know that even if it's made illegal in the US, they'll still have access to abortions at their convenience. It's about control. It's about undoing the progress women have made in becoming equal citizens with the right to self-determine. We see now with their push against birth control that was the real target all along. They want to maintain a vision of Christian patriarchy and they don't want anyone else to have a choice in whether or not they participate in it.

Yup, if it were just about abortion, the repubs would be pushing to make sure contraceptives were available to all, and be pushing to have bc covered by insurance.

Generally I don't like getting into these conversations because of how polarized they can be, but I feel like I have to bring something that came up when my wife and I decided to have a kid. We had the long hard talk about what we would do if we found out that our baby had a severe abnormality. This wasn't easy, but we made the tough choice that if our child ended up having something truly horrific that affected their quality of life, we would terminate the pregnancy. The problem was that we would not know if anything was wrong until the anatomy scan (level 2 ultrasound), which here in the States is generally done at 20 weeks. So having the window open until 24 weeks gives that extra time needed if something dire is discovered. Though I want to say that I have no idea how anyone could think that this is ever an easy choice, if anyone has seen a 20 week fetus, it's pretty much a fully formed baby (albeit smaller). I could not fathom anyone aborting past 20 weeks for the sake of convenience only.

runic knight:Now myself, I side with the right of the mother to have control over her own body as a natural extension of my siding with the right of individual liberties to exert control over themselves and their property. Much like someone breaking into your home and eating your food, an individual shouldn't have to accept that and should be able to defend themselves. That the home in this instance is within the womb doesn't change the concept.

Except that it does.

It fundamentally changes the concept to one of medical ethics and bodily autonomy.

The only way you could draw that equivalence is if you consider a person's "ownership" of material property to be the same as "ownership" of their body, which is not legally the case and, if it were the case would lead to some pretty horrifying conclusions. These bodies we have are not flesh suits which we can take on and off at will, they are not property in the sense a house is property, they are the material substance of the person itself, who is permanently and inexorably linked to them. To be the owner of a body is to be the person piloting it, there have been times when it has been legal for other people to own human bodies as property, and people still attempt to do so through various means, but our society recognises the permanent and inexorable nature of the link between a person and their body as something more than the transient link between a person and their property, and it is factually correct to do so.

Would that not then make the defense of abortion rights all the greater as the comparison between property rights and body rights brought up the right to decide what to do with one's property to the point of not being required to provide for an unwanted guest. By extension of the comparison, it would make it the right to determine what happens to our bodies an even stronger right than of property ownership and as such the right to make decisions like abortion all the stronger.

runic knight:Now the bigger issue is the knowledge that removal will kill the fetus. Well, much like kicking someone out of your home doesn't make you responsible for what happens to them after if they were breaking in anyways, I would say the same applies here.

Well, except again, the analogy doesn't work. If you kicked your child out of your home, then you would be responsible for what happened to them. Fortunately, again, owning a body isn't analogous to owning a house.

The point of the analogy was to just make the argument that the right to life of one person does not require that you provide for them if you removed them from your property that they were on uninvited. I was thinking more along the lines of a trespasser, not a child. Considering the notion being one of an unwanted guest from the start, not one where that decision was changed after the fact, and that a child comes with legal and tax benefits and consequences that would make it more akin to a contract willingly joined then wanting to be canceled rather than the intent of my analogy, to argue the case that if people are not required to provide for someone who enters their property uninvited, it is inconsistent to expect that of a woman who is pregnant without intent.

runic knight:Would that not then make the defense of abortion rights all the greater as the comparison between property rights and body rights brought up the right to decide what to do with one's property to the point of not being required to provide for an unwanted guest. By extension of the comparison, it would make it the right to determine what happens to our bodies an even stronger right than of property ownership and as such the right to make decisions like abortion all the stronger.

Exactly.

This is my point. The right to have exercise control over your body is (and should be) far, far more serious and immutable than the right to control your property. When we compare abortion to a property dispute, I actually think we're handing pro-lifers more legitimacy than they actually deserve, since they could reasonably argue for a conflict between property rights and other rights which might actually be seemingly valid. It's not valid, however, because we're not talking about property rights at all.

Now, pregnancy is complex and at some point we have to make an impossible judgement about when a fetus becomes a human being with their own rights to bodily autonomy. In a reasonable world, that would be the battleground for political debate, driven by the best scientific and medical evidence. However, what we are facing is not a reasonable argument, it's an argument which relies on religious convention and patriarchal nonsense. Pro-lifers don't care about the truth, they won't argue in good faith, they aren't interested in debate or compromise. Any ground we let them have, they will simply exploit to try and get what they want. Medical ethics is less vulnerable to this kind of exploitation than property rights.

runic knight:Would that not then make the defense of abortion rights all the greater as the comparison between property rights and body rights brought up the right to decide what to do with one's property to the point of not being required to provide for an unwanted guest. By extension of the comparison, it would make it the right to determine what happens to our bodies an even stronger right than of property ownership and as such the right to make decisions like abortion all the stronger.

Exactly.

This is my point. The right to have exercise control over your body is (and should be) far, far more serious and immutable than the right to control your property. When we compare abortion to a property dispute, I actually think we're handing pro-lifers more legitimacy than they actually deserve, since they could reasonably argue for a conflict between property rights and other rights which might actually be seemingly valid. It's not valid, however, because we're not talking about property rights at all.

Now, pregnancy is complex and at some point we have to make an impossible judgement about when a fetus becomes a human being with their own rights to bodily autonomy. In a reasonable world, that would be the battleground for political debate, driven by the best scientific and medical evidence. However, what we are facing is not a reasonable argument, it's an argument which relies on religious convention and patriarchal nonsense. Pro-lifers don't care about the truth, they won't argue in good faith, they aren't interested in debate or compromise. Any ground we let them have, they will simply exploit to try and get what they want. Medical ethics is less vulnerable to this kind of exploitation than property rights.

Ah, I gotcha then. It is a good point.

I do still find the comparison to property rights a good analogy to make to introduce a slightly different perspective to the debate though, if only because while weaker to argue the case for, property rights are more likely to be believed in by many of the same people pushing against abortion rights than medical rights which they might have already gotten used to dismissing internally. Beside forcing what is often conservative leaning people to argue against property rights thereby pressing an examination of their stance in a way that challenging based on abortion as a very contested and emotional topic does not, it can help avoid the usual "you hate women" and "you want to murder babies" bogpit all together.

My goal was to shift the conversation there from the morality of the decision of abortion which people internalize based on their own morality and project disagreement as immorality to the point of being a non-discussion about which side is more evil. The property analogy is the best I could come up with there to do so, as the degree of separation seems very important to avoid the usual useless screaming match this topic devolves into, and the notion of "should someone have to take care of an unwanted guest" uses the general cultural view of "I am not responsible for someone else's well being" and the notion of "I should not have to pay for someone else's welfare". It also is more separated from the religious ruling on the matter so again, another step away from the often ingrained emotionally-driven knee-jerk there

Now, pregnancy is complex and at some point we have to make an impossible judgement about when a fetus becomes a human being with their own rights to bodily autonomy. In a reasonable world, that would be the battleground for political debate, driven by the best scientific and medical evidence. However, what we are facing is not a reasonable argument, it's an argument which relies on religious convention and patriarchal nonsense. Pro-lifers don't care about the truth, they won't argue in good faith, they aren't interested in debate or compromise. Any ground we let them have, they will simply exploit to try and get what they want. Medical ethics is less vulnerable to this kind of exploitation than property rights.

Besides being a post that sounds satirical "we need to have a better discussion, but all those people with other opinions than mine are wrong". The elitist idea that only "scientists" deserve the right to have an opinion on the subject is just plain wrong. According to current science we humans are just slightly smarter cattle, there is no "soul" so the entire idea that human life has merit or a "starting point" is just wrong. At best you can make a case that a human is when the fetus develops a "human" feature and even then if we had the direct time of every feature how would we define a human? A heart? A brain? Or is it specific part of the brain? Or looking like a human? Or experiencing pain?

This is not a job for scientists as there is no science definition of "human enough", but rather a job for philosophy to define a "human enough" and then we will never have an answer that everyone will accept.

inu-kun:According to current science we humans are just slightly smarter cattle, there is no "soul" so the entire idea that human life has merit or a "starting point" is just wrong.

Can you cite a range of peer reviewed studies indicating that? I'd be interested in the methodology of how we go about rendering "souliness" into a metric gradient.

Seriously though, yes, empirical science alone accords us no basis for believing that human lives have inherent value or that human rights are justified, but at this point unless you're a literal fascist that is going to be your ethico-political stance and there are good reasons for that. That philosophical argument has been won and lost already. I get that maybe some people are still leery on the whole issue that women are human beings and equally deserving of the same rights as men, but until they can substantiate that in the domain of morality and politics I see no reason why that line of thinking should have any merit.

What science can do is to help us to understand how to apply our ethico-political stance to the real world in a way which is consistent and reasonable. This will still produce conflict and debate, as it rightly should, but it will weed out the kind of magical thinking which treats a fertilized zygote as equally (if not more) deserving of personhood than an adult human being.

Philosophically (or more accurately, theologically) that can be sustained. But it does not hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny when we compare it to reality.

inu-kun:According to current science we humans are just slightly smarter cattle, there is no "soul" so the entire idea that human life has merit or a "starting point" is just wrong.

Can you cite a range of peer reviewed studies indicating that? I'd be interested in the methodology of how we go about rendering "souliness" into a metric gradient.

Seriously though, yes, empirical science alone accords us no basis for believing that human lives have inherent value or that human rights are justified, but at this point unless you're a literal fascist that is going to be your ethico-political stance and there are good reasons for that. That philosophical argument has been won and lost already. I get that maybe some people are still leery on the whole issue that women are human beings and equally deserving of the same rights as men, but until they can substantiate that in the domain of morality and politics I see no reason why that line of thinking should have any merit.

What science can do is to help us to understand how to apply our ethico-political stance to the real world in a way which is consistent and reasonable. This will still produce conflict and debate, as it rightly should, but it will weed out the kind of magical thinking which treats a fertilized zygote as equally (if not more) deserving of personhood than an adult human being.

Philosophically (or more accurately, theologically) that can be sustained. But it does not hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny when we compare it to reality.

I'm not even making the point pro and against abortion at general, just the idea that there is some way to sceintifically measure "humanity" of a fetus.

Also men can't have abortions so the strawman "women are human beings and equally deserving of the same rights as men" not only untrue but paints women who are against abortions as "gender traitors" which is a whole debate I got into beforehand. Also if I'll be an dick (more than usual), trans women identifying as man can also have abortions so it is not a "women's issue".

I'm not even making the point pro and against abortion at general, just the idea that there is some way to sceintifically measure "humanity" of a fetus.

The word you're looking for is "personhood", I think, not humanity.

What personhood is is philosophically debatable. However, usually important to the idea is that a person should be capable of "agency", I guess you might say. Things like continuous consciousness and interaction with the world, ability to receive and process stimuli, having desires, etc.

Boiled down to basics, personhood therefore rests on the ability of a human to have a functioning brain that can feel, experience things and think about things. A human organism that ceases to be able to do these things is dead. A human organism that never gained the ability to do these things was never a person in the first place. Therefore we can turn to developmental biology to see at what point a foetal nervous system might reasonably be capable of meaningfully supporting feelings and thoughts, and the answer is held to be somewhere over 24 weeks.

You know, I don't think trans men would particularly care to be used the way you're weaponizing them. Particularly since the people who try to deny women abortions are the same people who try to treat transgendered people as sexual predators and freaks. So yeah, I'd think they'd take issue with their existence trying to prove that this isn't a problem with sexism. Particularly with the fact that yes, they're men. The people who are trying to take away abortions don't CARE that they're actually men.

Also women who are against abortions are basically saying "I don't like this and therefore everyone else must conform to my world views." I appreciate that your opinion of women is so high that you view it as impossible for them to have world views that are harmful to the female gender as a whole, but since I've experienced first hand that men can have ideas that are harmful to the male gender as a whole, well, I think you're looking at women via rose tinted glasses.

I'm not even making the point pro and against abortion at general, just the idea that there is some way to sceintifically measure "humanity" of a fetus.

The word you're looking for is "personhood", I think, not humanity.

What personhood is is philosophically debatable. However, usually important to the idea is that a person should be capable of "agency", I guess you might say. Things like continuous consciousness and interaction with the world, ability to receive and process stimuli, having desires, etc.

Boiled down to basics, personhood therefore rests on the ability of a human to have a functioning brain that can feel, experience things and think about things. A human organism that ceases to be able to do these things is dead. A human organism that never gained the ability to do these things was never a person in the first place. Therefore we can turn to developmental biology to see at what point a foetal nervous system might reasonably be capable of meaningfully supporting feelings and thoughts, and the answer is held to be somewhere over 24 weeks.

Let's say for example that I make a computer that perfectly emulates a toddler's brain, does that computer deserve full human rights as it is by a "functioning brain" definition is human? Also are people who have mental retardation "less human" as their brains are not up the full standard? Also how can we judge exactly when did a fetus have a thought?Edit: One more interesting question I thought of: So is raising brain dead infants as an "organ farm" completely moral as they are not people?

No it doesn't. Because the key word here is emulate. A human being grows and develops on its own. A computer doesn't. But you know what, actually build a computer like that and get back to me. And now you've moved on from weaponizing trans men to weaponizing the mentally handicapped? Good god man. And no, nothing about what you said makes any sense nor is a proper response. All he said was that a human brain can feel. You came out of nowhere and inserted standards into the equation. It has nothing to do with the brains of a fetus.

Why would you raise infants on an organ farm? That doesn't make any sense. It's a waste of resources and would only exist in a world created by a hack science fiction writer who doesn't know what the word "subtle" means. Seriously, acting like this is in anyway feasible is acting like Soylent Green is a realistic long term food source. Growing organs by themselves would be much more productive and cost effective. And how would you even make the babies brain dead? This implausible situation of yours requires two massive illogical steps. Raising babies for organs no one would be able to use except other babies, and babies aren't ideal for organ transplants, and that the babies are all somehow brain dead.

I'm not even making the point pro and against abortion at general, just the idea that there is some way to sceintifically measure "humanity" of a fetus.

The word you're looking for is "personhood", I think, not humanity.

What personhood is is philosophically debatable. However, usually important to the idea is that a person should be capable of "agency", I guess you might say. Things like continuous consciousness and interaction with the world, ability to receive and process stimuli, having desires, etc.

Boiled down to basics, personhood therefore rests on the ability of a human to have a functioning brain that can feel, experience things and think about things. A human organism that ceases to be able to do these things is dead. A human organism that never gained the ability to do these things was never a person in the first place. Therefore we can turn to developmental biology to see at what point a foetal nervous system might reasonably be capable of meaningfully supporting feelings and thoughts, and the answer is held to be somewhere over 24 weeks.

So can we go ahead and kill people in a vegetative/coma state too, which have even lower chances to experience things/feelings/thoughts in the future?

For the record, I'm not against abortion up to 8-10 weeks (reportedly the time the fetus can still not feel pain), but I fully admit it's murder and something to be avoided at all costs.

For the record, I'm not against abortion up to 8-10 weeks (reportedly the time the fetus can still not feel pain), but I fully admit it's murder and something to be avoided at all costs.

"Not against" and "avoided at all costs" are not compatible.

Yes they are. Not being against doesn't mean celebrating it (which is kind of sick in this case). There are situations where it is needed, but bar extreme scenarios it should be avoided, as it is murder and also is not good for the woman.

Delicious Anathema:So can we go ahead and kill people in a vegetative/coma state too, which have even lower chances to experience things/feelings/thoughts in the future?

It's already legal for next of kin or those with power of attorney to remove people from life support. What's your point?

Or are you trying to compare abortion being legal to the state forcing people off life support? Because that's an idiotic argument. No one here is arguing that we should allow the state to force people to get abortions.

Delicious Anathema:So can we go ahead and kill people in a vegetative/coma state too, which have even lower chances to experience things/feelings/thoughts in the future?

It's already legal for next of kin or those with power of attorney to remove people from life support. What's your point?

Or are you trying to compare abortion being legal to the state forcing people off life support? Because that's an idiotic argument. No one here is arguing that we should allow the state to force people to get abortions.

No, I meant attributing "personhood" or "humanity" to the ability to experience or be aware to justify killing someone is a poor argument in general, hence the comparison I made (in which I didn't mention forcing anything, just having the option).

Delicious Anathema:So can we go ahead and kill people in a vegetative/coma state too, which have even lower chances to experience things/feelings/thoughts in the future?

It's already legal for next of kin or those with power of attorney to remove people from life support. What's your point?

Or are you trying to compare abortion being legal to the state forcing people off life support? Because that's an idiotic argument. No one here is arguing that we should allow the state to force people to get abortions.

No, I meant attributing "personhood" or "humanity" to the ability to experience or be aware to justify killing someone is a poor argument in general, hence the comparison I made (in which I didn't mention forcing anything, just having the option).

Well, the answer to your question is yes, we allow those in a vegetative state to be taken off life support, which is a passive way of killing them.

Why is it a poor argument? Personhood has to be defined somehow. Sapience seems like a good qualifier. And the comparison to someone in a coma is still flawed. A person that went into a coma was at one point able to experience and had awareness. I'd say you have a stronger argument to keep that person alive if there's any chance of them coming out of the coma over protecting a fetus which never had awareness to begin with.

Let's say for example that I make a computer that perfectly emulates a toddler's brain, does that computer deserve full human rights as it is by a "functioning brain" definition is human?

That depends. If you mean a mere computer simulacrum of the toddler at a point in time, no rights. If it is capable of rather more such as independent self-direction, development, etc. - in other words, it's an AI - then we're into the debate of what constitutes an AI and whether they should have rights. Broadly, to be consistent, AIs should have rights comparable to humans where relevant in my view.

Also are people who have mental retardation "less human" as their brains are not up the full standard? Also how can we judge exactly when did a fetus have a thought?

To the first question, no. As long as one has certain cognitive functions they would qualify. That they may be less capable at some of those functions than other people are is neither here nor there. To the second question, we can measure whether brain is capable of supporting thought. This might be anatomically (do the right neurones even connect) and/or physiologically (is the measured activity between neurones indicative of thought).

A very simple example might be a pain reflex. If there is no response to stimulus, it suggests the central nervous system can't achieve one or more of: a) receive/recognise pain signals, b) translate pain signals into an appropriate response, c) send motor response signals to muscles.

Edit: One more interesting question I thought of: So is raising brain dead infants as an "organ farm" completely moral as they are not people?

Controversial. Bear in mind even if it is not considered immoral from the point of view of personhood, but it may be considered immoral on other grounds.

Let's say for example that I make a computer that perfectly emulates a toddler's brain, does that computer deserve full human rights as it is by a "functioning brain" definition is human?

That depends. If you mean a mere computer simulacrum of the toddler at a point in time, no rights. If it is capable of rather more such as independent self-direction, development, etc. - in other words, it's an AI - then we're into the debate of what constitutes an AI and whether they should have rights. Broadly, to be consistent, AIs should have rights comparable to humans where relevant in my view.

Actually thinking about it further before we can even ask what constitutes as humans we need to question what constitutes the difference between a "human" and "non-human" (like animals) as both can "supporting feelings and thoughts".

Also are people who have mental retardation "less human" as their brains are not up the full standard? Also how can we judge exactly when did a fetus have a thought?

To the first question, no. As long as one has certain cognitive functions they would qualify. That they may be less capable at some of those functions than other people are is neither here nor there. To the second question, we can measure whether brain is capable of supporting thought. This might be anatomically (do the right neurones even connect) and/or physiologically (is the measured activity between neurones indicative of thought).

A very simple example might be a pain reflex. If there is no response to stimulus, it suggests the central nervous system can't achieve one or more of: a) receive/recognise pain signals, b) translate pain signals into an appropriate response, c) send motor response signals to muscles.

The problem is that once we attach the label of humanity to a set of qualities we need to expect the cases where those qualities are not reached will be stigmatized and dehumanized (as human history frequently shows). For the example you gave it seems there is an ailment that prevents people for feeling pain.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

Edit: One more interesting question I thought of: So is raising brain dead infants as an "organ farm" completely moral as they are not people?

Controversial. Bear in mind even if it is not considered immoral from the point of view of personhood, but it may be considered immoral on other grounds.

But in the end we are talking about beings that are, legally speaking, have as much rights as cancerous tumours. As I said above, we need to expect that legal break will be misused as human history shows.

Actually thinking about it further before we can even ask what constitutes as humans we need to question what constitutes the difference between a "human" and "non-human" (like animals) as both can "supporting feelings and thoughts".

Good question. It's the sort of issue the philosopher Peter Singer brings up when he discusses "speciesism" - that perhaps humans elevate themselves above animals simply for being a different species rather than applying consistent rules. Most animals are, however, generally not held to be capable of consciously planning for the (long-term) future, have very poor so-called "autobiographical" memory, and so on. Mind you, the average dog outperforms the average seven year old child in many cognitive tasks, so let's not get too cocky.

The problem is that once we attach the label of humanity to a set of qualities we need to expect the cases where those qualities are not reached will be stigmatized and dehumanized (as human history frequently shows). For the example you gave it seems there is an ailment that prevents people for feeling pain.

Pain is not the only measure measure though (nor even in some ways an important one) - usually sapience would be measured by other cognitive capabilities. I just gave pain as a simple way we can measure thought.

But in the end we are talking about beings that are, legally speaking, have as much rights as cancerous tumours. As I said above, we need to expect that legal break will be misused as human history shows.

Yes, I totally expect it would be abused too. Assuming it is necessary - the most likely use strikes me as spare organs, but chances are by the time we can grow a braindead human, it'll be cheaper and easier to grow individual organs in a tank as required.

Maybe if the GOP wasn't doing everything it can to make getting an abortion as hard as possible in the states it controls, I wouldn't mind a ticking clock element being added to the situation as well. But they are. So I do.

Right, so surely you'd rather fight and complain about making it harder, rather than do the same to the ticking clock?

In this situation I'm going with "All of the above," because both approaches fall under the GOP slowly attempting to erode women's access to a service they need.

Honestly this is something that could probably backfire for the anti-abortion crowd too. Do you really want to take an issue as important as abortion and say "you have to make a choice NOW!" Because it's going to make people panic and jump to snap decisions. I will hate that it may make women feel obligated to stick with a pregnancy they don't want, and I can see other people getting angry if it makes women who wanted to keep a baby but they were unsure jump to abortion because she didn't want to miss the boat. Heck, I'm pro-choice but I don't want women to have abortions if they're not certain.

I don't really see the issue. The law makes exceptions for rape and health complications, which are the two major issues I care about. Practicing responsible sex outide of that should remove the issue. That means using protection, birth control, or the morning after pill.

Right, so surely you'd rather fight and complain about making it harder, rather than do the same to the ticking clock?

In this situation I'm going with "All of the above," because both approaches fall under the GOP slowly attempting to erode women's access to a service they need.

Honestly this is something that could probably backfire for the anti-abortion crowd too. Do you really want to take an issue as important as abortion and say "you have to make a choice NOW!" Because it's going to make people panic and jump to snap decisions. I will hate that it may make women feel obligated to stick with a pregnancy they don't want, and I can see other people getting angry if it makes women who wanted to keep a baby but they were unsure jump to abortion because she didn't want to miss the boat. Heck, I'm pro-choice but I don't want women to have abortions if they're not certain.

I don't really see the issue. The law makes exceptions for rape and health complications, which are the two major issues I care about. Practicing responsible sex outide of that should remove the issue. That means using protection, birth control, or the morning after pill.

Unfortunately, making exceptions isn't the exceptions you want. Abortion isnt as cut and dry as people think it is. You cant just walk in and have it. Depending on the state there's a raceway of hurdles you have to pass in order to even have a chance.

So for instance, pregnancy can be found as early as week 1 or 2. So thats 2 weeks down if you're somehow checking regularly (and it isn't caused by a condom failure you or your partner didnt catch) so you and your partner take a week to decide whether to keep it. then you call your doctor and wait a week or two to get an appointment. but you cant get an abortion right away, most states require an ultrasound. So thats another week. Then theres a waiting period which could be another week or two. Then you have to go to a family planning clinic, of which there are fewer and fewer, which could take another week.

the whole anti-choice game is to make you wait it out. to waste your time till the limit has passed.

sure, theres exceptions for health complications, but how many doctors appointments would that take to find? how many weeks would that add? And rape? how many weeks would it take for someone to believe the woman, let alone test her? and how long would it take to check the test? its no secret that police offices have back rooms filled with tested rape kits they never sent out.

you're assuming that conservatives are playing in good faith, when all they're doing is cutting down the clock in thousands of slivers till its impossible to go to a clinic.

Right, so surely you'd rather fight and complain about making it harder, rather than do the same to the ticking clock?

In this situation I'm going with "All of the above," because both approaches fall under the GOP slowly attempting to erode women's access to a service they need.

Honestly this is something that could probably backfire for the anti-abortion crowd too. Do you really want to take an issue as important as abortion and say "you have to make a choice NOW!" Because it's going to make people panic and jump to snap decisions. I will hate that it may make women feel obligated to stick with a pregnancy they don't want, and I can see other people getting angry if it makes women who wanted to keep a baby but they were unsure jump to abortion because she didn't want to miss the boat. Heck, I'm pro-choice but I don't want women to have abortions if they're not certain.

I don't really see the issue. The law makes exceptions for rape and health complications, which are the two major issues I care about. Practicing responsible sex outide of that should remove the issue. That means using protection, birth control, or the morning after pill.

Well then it's a good thing the GOP isn't attacking contraception too...oh wait. Uh...well it's a good thing they don't encourage abstinence only..oh wait. Well it's a good thing the GOP is going to support the poor mothers they're keeping from getting these abortions-oh right.

Well then it's a good thing the GOP isn't attacking contraception too...oh wait. Uh...well it's a good thing they don't encourage abstinence only..oh wait. Well it's a good thing the GOP is going to support the poor mothers they're keeping from getting these abortions-oh right.

This goes beyond what you care about.

Also trying to cut the tax credit for adoption, because pro-life somehow.